How are Rome's monuments still standing? • Hacker News Board

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#51

Post by User23 » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 10:44 PM UTC

atdrummond wrote: post #46

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Romans invented concrete, and it was so good that still today the average concrete can't compete with it (its resistance to cracks is one example) Rewind history and roman buildings would still be there. They are thought to be one of the few things that would survive human extinction. The only thing that would outlast them are Giza Pyramids. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete

I don’t have the energy to revisit the arguments about Roman concrete that come up every time it is mentioned on HN. Needless to say, the notion that their “superior” method was “forgotten” is a massive oversimplification of what actually happened. Another comment made my point better than I did - which was that Roman buildings that remained standing did so because they were useful for some purpose, often an alternat…

> There are plenty of old buildings (such as Hōryū-ji) that don’t use any kind of magical construction techniques but have stuck around because of their value to the surrounding society and active efforts at preservation and/or repurposing.

This is true, but rather misleading. Hōryū-ji burned down and is probably around 80-90% new material.

The Roman concrete structures on the other hand survived this long with their original construction materials.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#52

Post by valarauko » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 10:46 PM UTC

8ytecoder wrote: post #17

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #2

TL;DR: their concrete was different. > Roman concrete, on the other hand, is a simpler mix of quicklime made from baking and crushing limestone rocks and, most importantly, volcanic rock aggregates of various types, which were abundant in the region surrounding Rome. In contrast to the aggregates used in modern concrete, these volcanic materials used by the Romans are highly reactive and the resulting concrete remain…

I think we’re missing another key factor here. Most “well preserved” buildings are ones that are in continuous use. So they get maintained and repaired. A temple in south India is about a 1000 years old. It has seen repeated damages - some intentional during conquests - but survives to this day because the damages were patched up within a few decades. The “few decades” it can go - even with damages - is likely from t…

Well, while this is true, there is some level of survivorship bias here. Plenty of comparable South Indian temples were torn down, and the ones that survive are mostly quirks of chance. Even the ones that do survive have seen many of their gopurams (monumental gates) collapse after a few centuries due to political apathy in modern times - the one I recall most recently was at Srikalahasti.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#53

Post by noyeastguy » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 10:47 PM UTC

I wonder if there will come a time when society decides it's better to fix ruins such as the Colosseum and the pyramids instead of letting them just rot away.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#54

Post by dehrmann » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 10:51 PM UTC

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #37

atdrummond wrote: post #10

They’re not. The Romans built a huge amount and much of their artistic architectural works remaining today were purposely preserved, even if reused for some alternative purpose. Yes, there are some construction techniques they used that contributed to better survival rates than some other structure types. But mostly we’ve ended up with what was lucky enough to survive. Replay the historical tape again and we might be…

Nope. Romans invented concrete, and it was so good that still today the average concrete can't compete with it (its resistance to cracks is one example) Rewind history and roman buildings would still be there. They are thought to be one of the few things that would survive human extinction. The only thing that would outlast them are Giza Pyramids. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete

There might be some truth to Roman concrete still being reactive leading to its longevity, but I'd be really careful about dismissing survivorship bias.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#55

Post by thinkski » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 10:52 PM UTC

Does make me wonder what we’re building today that will last. I suppose the engineers who worked on Voyager or Pathfinder have the best shot of having built something enduring.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#56

Post by i_have_an_idea » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 10:54 PM UTC

noyeastguy wrote: post #53

I wonder if there will come a time when society decides it's better to fix ruins such as the Colosseum and the pyramids instead of letting them just rot away.

What would be the practical purpose of "fixing" something like the pyramids? Vs. just preserving them as-is.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#57

Post by rurp » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

Tangentially related to this, one of my hobbies is to explore old long abandoned ghost towns and mining camps in the Southwest US. It is really impressive how well many of these structures have held up in harsh climates. One of my favorite parts is seeing how repairs were improvised in the wilderness using whatever supplies happened to be available.

The standard approach to trash back then was to throw it in a pile nearby. Picking through those dumps can be really fascinating and a surprising amount of items are still in good shape. A simple heuristic for how old a glass bottle is is how thick it is. A modern beer bottle looks paper thin compared to one a century old.

Looking at old structures and tools really makes vivid how disposable many modern items are.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#58

Post by JSavageOne » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

atdrummond wrote: post #10

They’re not. The Romans built a huge amount and much of their artistic architectural works remaining today were purposely preserved, even if reused for some alternative purpose. Yes, there are some construction techniques they used that contributed to better survival rates than some other structure types. But mostly we’ve ended up with what was lucky enough to survive. Replay the historical tape again and we might be…

You respond to an article detailing the superior durability of Roman concrete with "they just chose to preserve these buildings" and "they just got lucky", cite no sources, and this is the top comment on this thread?

Seems HN quality has gone downhill since what I last remember.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#59

Post by poo-yie » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 11:02 PM UTC

rurp wrote: post #57

Tangentially related to this, one of my hobbies is to explore old long abandoned ghost towns and mining camps in the Southwest US. It is really impressive how well many of these structures have held up in harsh climates. One of my favorite parts is seeing how repairs were improvised in the wilderness using whatever supplies happened to be available. The standard approach to trash back then was to throw it in a pile n…

Similarly, I have a hobby of restoring vintage and antique tools. Same observation regarding how disposable many modern items are.

Re: How are Rome's monuments still standing?

#60

Post by nitwit005 » Mon, Dec 20, 2021, 11:04 PM UTC

How many of these have undergone serious repairs? I've seen multiple news stories about colosseum repairs and renovations during my lifetime, and I'm sure there were plenty of earlier efforts. Rome has burned or been hit by major earthquakes multiple times since these things were built.